FEDERER: Top five reasons he is Greatest Of All Time [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

FEDERER: Top five reasons he is Greatest Of All Time

Tennistunes
02-03-2008, 02:55 PM
Rene Stauffer, the author of the book THE ROGER FEDERER STORY, QUEST FOR PERFECTION (www.rogerfedererbook.com) posted the top five reasons why Federer should be considered the greatest player of all-time...here are his tongue-in-check reasons...Thoughts?


1) Boris Becker once said that tennis years count like dog years – seven times human years – so Federer being ranked No. 1 in the world for over 200 straight weeks, means he been No. 1 in the world for over 1400 weeks – or nearly 27 years - according to Becker!

2) Federer reached 10 straight Grand Slam finals, which is three more than the next best streak which was seven straight Grand Slam finals achieved by Jack Crawford.

3) Federer is a master of all court surfaces. He has won 12 Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces (grass, hard court and rebound ace), where Rod Laver and Don Budge, the only players to win the "Grand Slam," won major titles on only two surfaces (grass and clay). Pete Sampras owns the most Grand Slam singles titles won among men with 14, but Sampras was much less accomplished on clay courts, only reaching the semifinals of the French Open one time, while Federer was a runner-up the last two years at Roland Garros and was a semifinalist one other year.

4) Federer just completed his third Grand Slam tennis season where he won three of the four Grand Slam titles for a THIRD TIME (also in 2004 and 2006) – an unprecedented feat in tennis (Laver did this twice, winning all four majors in 1962 and 1969). The last two years for Federer (2006 and 2007), he was only one match - and two sets away - from winning the Grand Slam. This is a truly remarkable achievement in the modern era of tennis.

5) Federer is a good neutral pick for greatest of all time because he is from Switzerland!

Chiseller
02-03-2008, 03:47 PM
lol at 5

Manon
02-03-2008, 04:18 PM
Sampras is way better & will be.

Burrow
02-03-2008, 04:32 PM
You won't be saying that when Federer ends up with like 18 grand slams.

Manon
02-03-2008, 05:01 PM
Doesn't matter. That will be only numbers.

platinum
02-03-2008, 05:04 PM
Laver is the greatest of all time.... He won the Grand slam TWICE. Federer won't even win the Grand Slam ONCE.......

Manon
02-03-2008, 05:06 PM
Numbers again....we talk abuot quality or ?

Meadowsweet
02-03-2008, 08:07 PM
Numbers again....we talk abuot quality or ?

exactly, we're talking about quality. Did you ever watch Fed play?:D

CyBorg
02-03-2008, 08:15 PM
This is tongue-in-cheek for the most part, but all the talk of grand slam titles as indicators of greatness are lame. The open era began in the late sixties - until then professionals were not allowed to participate at events like Wimbledon. Anyone who mentions Laver's 1962 grand slam as a serious indicator of his greatness does not know his history.

In terms of a sheer volume of accomplishments Federer stands a mile behind the likes of Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall. And Gonzalez was the world's top player longer than Roger. Rosewall and Laver may have been as well.

dragons112
02-03-2008, 09:32 PM
Sampras is way better & will be.

Samprass is not even close to roger.

I dont understand the fifth bullet point though

stebs
02-03-2008, 10:10 PM
This is tongue-in-cheek for the most part, but all the talk of grand slam titles as indicators of greatness are lame. The open era began in the late sixties - until then professionals were not allowed to participate at events like Wimbledon. Anyone who mentions Laver's 1962 grand slam as a serious indicator of his greatness does not know his history.

In terms of a sheer volume of accomplishments Federer stands a mile behind the likes of Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall. And Gonzalez was the world's top player longer than Roger. Rosewall and Laver may have been as well.

Discussing GOAT should be kept to open era imo. Too hard to compare acheivements otherwise.

CyBorg
02-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Discussing GOAT should be kept to open era imo. Too hard to compare acheivements otherwise.

GOAT stands for the 'greatest of all time'. "All-time" means all-time. If you wish to discuss the open era only then what you have is 'the greatest of the open era', which would come out to GOOE.

That means that Roger might be the GOOE, but it may be Borg depending on who you ask.:p

acharlesmobile
02-03-2008, 10:21 PM
Federer will only be the GOAT if he's cheering for the Giants.

stebs
02-03-2008, 10:33 PM
GOAT stands for the 'greatest of all time'. "All-time" means all-time. If you wish to discuss the open era only then what you have is 'the greatest of the open era', which would come out to GOOE.

That means that Roger might be the GOOE, but it may be Borg depending on who you ask.:p

Fair enough.

Well then I think the discussion should be GOOE, not GOAT.

Manon
02-04-2008, 12:13 AM
exactly, we're talking about quality. Did you ever watch Fed play?:D

Always. Did you.....Sampras play? Fed is right behind him. I like Fed but I think what I think...

CyBorg
02-04-2008, 02:30 AM
Fair enough.

Well then I think the discussion should be GOOE, not GOAT.

GOOOOOOEEEEEE! Makes me think of cheese.

Gooey cheese that is.

BIGMARAT
02-04-2008, 04:15 AM
Federer is already the greatest of all time in my opinion. He will just solidify this status by winning 2 or more Grandslams.

CyBorg
02-04-2008, 04:23 AM
Federer is already the greatest of all time in my opinion. He will just solidify this status by winning 2 or more Grandslams.

That would be pretty cool. Considering he's never done it before.

JediFed
02-04-2008, 08:12 AM
I think he means slams.

He's not there yet. I'd rank him 3rd in the open era behind Borg and Sampras for their careers. 2 more slams, or 1 RG would put him over both so he's very close.

As for all surfaces, not yet.

1. Agassi won all 4 slams.
2. Bjorn reached the finals of the USO 4 times (Fed's only reached RG Finals twice).
3. Lendl reached the wimbledon finals twice, and 4 SFs.
4. Federer.

theprodigy
02-04-2008, 08:58 AM
I think the GOAT battle is among Laver, Federer and Borg; anything goes with these three. But in my mind, Sampras is already fixed in the 4th place.

tennisvideos
02-04-2008, 09:05 AM
This is tongue-in-cheek for the most part, but all the talk of grand slam titles as indicators of greatness are lame. The open era began in the late sixties - until then professionals were not allowed to participate at events like Wimbledon. Anyone who mentions Laver's 1962 grand slam as a serious indicator of his greatness does not know his history.

In terms of a sheer volume of accomplishments Federer stands a mile behind the likes of Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall. And Gonzalez was the world's top player longer than Roger. Rosewall and Laver may have been as well.

Actually I think your comments are absolutely relevant .... because the truth is that a number of TRUE greats of the game have been essentially wiped from the history books because of the pro division prior to 1968. And those TRUE GREATS include:

Donald Budge
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver

Jack Kramer should also get a mention.

And I also think Laver's 1962 Grand Slam meant nothing. The top players were on the pro tour eg. Gonzales & Rosewall. However his 1969 Grand Slam does count and is a huge factor in his greatness.

Personally, I rank Rosewall as the GOAT of the pre-open era, and Federer the greatest of the Open era. Rosewall had a longer career at the top (of the amateur and pro league and racking up more Grand Slam titles and their equivilent on the pro tour) than anyone.

CyBorg
02-04-2008, 02:13 PM
Actually I think your comments are absolutely relevant .... because the truth is that a number of TRUE greats of the game have been essentially wiped from the history books because of the pro division prior to 1968. And those TRUE GREATS include:

Donald Budge
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver

Jack Kramer should also get a mention.

And I also think Laver's 1962 Grand Slam meant nothing. The top players were on the pro tour eg. Gonzales & Rosewall. However his 1969 Grand Slam does count and is a huge factor in his greatness.

Personally, I rank Rosewall as the GOAT of the pre-open era, and Federer the greatest of the Open era. Rosewall had a longer career at the top (of the amateur and pro league and racking up more Grand Slam titles and their equivilent on the pro tour) than anyone.

Tilden also had a near perfect career, while Ellsworth Vines is described as being the best ever 'in his prime' by Jack Kramer.

Rosewall amassed the most achievements than anyone from what I know. He became a star in the mid-50s and stayed one until almost the mid-70s. An amazing stretch. Of course it's debatable as to whether this is still possible to accomplish in today's day and age. I don't think Rosewall's peak was as great as Laver's, but for a while in the early 60s he was winning everywhere.

Realistically speaking, Rosewall would have definitely won all of the four majors if the open championships were available to the pros. Gonzales usually came second to Trabert on clay, but would have had a shot to win the French. He certainly would have won everywhere else. Kramer was exceptional on all surfaces.

Corey Feldman
02-04-2008, 04:13 PM
We all know who will never be in the GOAT discussion, why? coz ..

http://www.quizland.com/hiero/d.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/j.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/o.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/k.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/o.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/v.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/i.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/c.gif
http://www.quizland.com/hiero/s.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/u.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/c.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/k.gif http://www.quizland.com/hiero/s.gif

JediFed
02-04-2008, 04:29 PM
Hater. :mad:

We all know he will win the Golden Slam, but with TWO olympic medals. :angel:

Manon
02-04-2008, 08:03 PM
We all know he will win the Golden Slam

We don't know. Bull.

l_mac
02-04-2008, 08:48 PM
Always. Did you.....Sampras play? Fed is right behind him. I like Fed but I think what I think...

:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:

1. Robredo
2. Youzhny
3. Ljubicic
4. Stepanek
5. Nadal
6. Tipsarevic
7. Ferrer
8. Davydenko
9. Andereev
10. Federer

:retard:

Burrow
02-04-2008, 09:29 PM
Doesn't matter. That will be only numbers.

:lol: Well the higher quality you are, the numbers rise...see? ;)

World Beater
02-04-2008, 09:33 PM
:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:



:retard:


:haha:

good one.

Manon :retard:

Federerhingis
02-04-2008, 09:35 PM
Sampras is way better & will be.

How is Sampras going to be better? He is no longer playing, he's been retired for what is it almost 5 years. :confused:

mangoes
02-04-2008, 09:57 PM
:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:



:retard:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Djokovic's personal journalist needs to keep his/her stories straight:lol: :lol:

Sunset of Age
02-04-2008, 10:00 PM
:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:

:retard:

Priceless. :worship: :worship: :worship:

nolop
02-04-2008, 11:44 PM
I thought rebound ace was a hard court, oh well, my mistake.

Fedforever
02-05-2008, 04:38 AM
:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:



:retard:

Fed haters can do everything, no? :lol: :lol:

Jlee
02-05-2008, 04:50 AM
Without taking anything away from pre-open era greats, I don't think they can be reasonably factored into the discussion. You have to look at Borg, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Laver etc. Even Agassi won all four slams which is arguably more impressive than Pete's 14. What qualifies as greatness? An ability to play on a variety of surfaces or absolute ownership of the tour for several years? Fed could still do both, but the window is slowly closing. I'd say that he has to win RG in the next three years or so and maybe the Olympic gold to be the GOAT. I don't actually see him winning the Grand Slam ever...Djokovic and the other young guys will be pressing him too hard.

Either way, he's almost definitely passing Pete's 14. All he needs is a RG.

Halba
02-05-2008, 08:04 AM
opposition? has been PATHETIC

now he has djokovic, nadal, tsonga, murray , gasquet and a resurgent nalbandian to contend with.

hewitt- no weapons

roddick- no game

safin - no brain

gonzalez - no backhand

haas - not fit

davydenko - not able to counter slice

nalbandian- not healthy

ferrer - not multi dimensional

scud- only serve

agassi - not young

ljubicic - truba enuff said

blake - no backhand

he hasn't faced any quality or legendary TOUGH opposition like courier, sampras, kafelnikov, becker, edberg, lendl, borg, vilas, mcenroe etc at their peaks! some of these were great on grass! the only quality one he has faced is djokovic who may be a blend of prior legends - time will tell!

Commander Data
02-05-2008, 08:42 AM
Okay Experts lets turn the argument around. what does Federer need to do to become GOAT?


- 15 GS
- RG
- 6. straight Wimbledon
- Most weeks as No. 1
- ?

RagingLamb
02-05-2008, 04:09 PM
it's easy to say who is great, but it's impossible to determine a goat.

there are too many factors out of the players' control that might set them apart.

We all have personal favorites, but we should appreciate all of these tennis greats. To say any of them is the greatest of all time is in the end nothing more than opinion.

FedererSlam
02-05-2008, 04:13 PM
We should expand the list...


(6) Only TMF can pull off the “backward trackie” look.

(7) He somehow withstood Tipsy’s deadly, Medusa-esque stare.

(8) He intimidates everyone, including chair umpires (“Challenge, I said!”).


:worship::worship:

Tennis-Engineer
02-05-2008, 04:14 PM
Federer might be the HOAT (hottest of all time ) but not the GOAT ! :lol:

theDreamer
02-05-2008, 05:53 PM
it's easy to say who is great, but it's impossible to determine a goat.

there are too many factors out of the players' control that might set them apart.

We all have personal favorites, but we should appreciate all of these tennis greats. To say any of them is the greatest of all time is in the end nothing more than opinion.

:worship::worship:
Totally agree.

Manon
02-05-2008, 05:54 PM
Federer might be the HOAT (hottest of all time ) but not the GOAT ! :lol:

Gosh, he is so ugly....

Manon
02-05-2008, 05:59 PM
:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:

Originally Posted by Manon
1. Robredo
2. Youzhny
3. Ljubicic
4. Stepanek
5. Nadal
6. Tipsarevic
7. Ferrer
8. Davydenko
9. Andereev
10. Federer

:retard:

Retard or not I like his game (not him). My mistake.

Polikarpov
02-05-2008, 06:19 PM
I don't understand why determining who's the greatest of all time is such a big deal. It all boils down to personal biases and opinions anyway.

Manon
02-05-2008, 06:26 PM
I don't understand why determining who's the greatest of all time is such a big deal. It all boils down to personal biases and opinions anyway.

10 points!

gogogirl
02-05-2008, 08:14 PM
Hey All,

I didn't see a thread and my bad if there is one, but Roger showed up at the Super Bowl. I was watching the pre-game stuff - and the MC from American Idol was interviewing folks walking down/up the red carpet - and Roger's name was mentioned, I looked up and there he was. He was by himself too.

I think Roger is great - but not the greatest of all time. He is so many things and adjectives though that can't be attributed to the majority of the players that's ever played the game. When he is all the way on - he is the greatest actvie player playing today - for sure.

Federerhingis
02-05-2008, 11:23 PM
Hey All,

I didn't see a thread and my bad if there is one, but Roger showed up at the Super Bowl. I was watching the pre-game stuff - and the MC from American Idol was interviewing folks walking down/up the red carpet - and Roger's name was mentioned, I looked up and there he was. He was by himself too.

I think Roger is great - but not the greatest of all time. He is so many things and adjectives though that can't be attributed to the majority of the players that's ever played the game. When he is all the way on - he is the greatest actvie player playing today - for sure.


Ditto, He is shoulders and heads above the rest of the current players playing and from the past except for the few true greats, but I think he has surpassed the likes of Connors, Lendl and Agassi. He still needs to work on his longevity, Agassi still has the advantage on this aspect, he too has a gold medal which Federer does not possess but might get at this year's Beijing games. Plus Andre has the career slam so actually Federer isn't quite yet superior to Agassi overall in terms of career achievements.

Therefore he can't yet be considered the best of all time, his career is not over yet. So this can be bumped again after he retires. :p

whatashot
02-06-2008, 07:00 PM
Ditto, He is shoulders and heads above the rest of the current players playing and from the past except for the few true greats, but I think he has surpassed the likes of Connors, Lendl and Agassi. He still needs to work on his longevity, Agassi still has the advantage on this aspect, he too has a gold medal which Federer does not possess but might get at this year's Beijing games. Plus Andre has the career slam so actually Federer isn't quite yet superior to Agassi overall in terms of career achievements.

Therefore he can't yet be considered the best of all time, his career is not over yet. So this can be bumped again after he retires. :p

When Federer's career is over we will, I am sure, recognise him as the greatest of all time and probably the best loved of all time. He is the one we will all remember because he has so much more personality and grace than previous champions. There is so much to like and so little to dislike about him. He is and always will be the tennis star.

CyBorg
02-06-2008, 10:18 PM
When Federer's career is over we will, I am sure, recognise him as the greatest of all time and probably the best loved of all time. He is the one we will all remember because he has so much more personality and grace than previous champions.

Roger's mom?

Fedex
02-09-2008, 09:02 AM
:wavey:

From the Most Disliked thread:



:retard:

Absolutely brilliant. You caught him in a bold faced lie. Oh well, some people want to have it both ways.

alessandro
02-09-2008, 02:28 PM
I think he means slams.

He's not there yet. I'd rank him 3rd in the open era behind Borg and Sampras for their careers. 2 more slams, or 1 RG would put him over both so he's very close.

As for all surfaces, not yet.

1. Agassi won all 4 slams.
2. Bjorn reached the finals of the USO 4 times (Fed's only reached RG Finals twice).
3. Lendl reached the wimbledon finals twice, and 4 SFs.
4. Federer.

Bjorn Borg was amazing and Sampras and Laver and Federer :) Although Agassi is cool I don't think he can be compared to the four.

I agree though that a little more grandslams or that elusive French (sounds Hingis-ish) will make Federer a lot more GOATY

Actually I think your comments are absolutely relevant .... because the truth is that a number of TRUE greats of the game have been essentially wiped from the history books because of the pro division prior to 1968. And those TRUE GREATS include:

Donald Budge
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver

Jack Kramer should also get a mention.

And I also think Laver's 1962 Grand Slam meant nothing. The top players were on the pro tour eg. Gonzales & Rosewall. However his 1969 Grand Slam does count and is a huge factor in his greatness.

Personally, I rank Rosewall as the GOAT of the pre-open era, and Federer the greatest of the Open era. Rosewall had a longer career at the top (of the amateur and pro league and racking up more Grand Slam titles and their equivilent on the pro tour) than anyone.

I agree with the poster here, the poster also has very nice historical posts about the WTA.

Chloe le Bopper
02-09-2008, 03:55 PM
Sampras is way better & will be.

lol

Doesn't matter. That will be only numbers.

More lol.

Neither of these posts deserve more than just that: lol

Chloe le Bopper
02-09-2008, 04:08 PM
Currently, certain "detractors" like to hold Fed's "failure" to win RG against him. When all is said and done, I think that the reality of the situation will be very clear: in almost any other era, Fed would probably have won RG. In this era, he had to face Rafael Nadal, who will almost certainly go down as one of the best clay courters of all time (when all is said and done, I suspect Nadal be second only to Borg on clay, if anybody at all). Agassi was "fortunate" enough not to see a Rafael Nadal in 1999.

Timing is everything. For RG, Federer's been somewhat damned.

That said, I'd like to see him find a way to win it in the next year or two, if only to help kill what should already be a dead discussion.

elessar
02-09-2008, 04:09 PM
lol
Neither of these posts deserve more than just that: lol

It's a very recurrent theme with Manon's posts

CyBorg
02-09-2008, 05:58 PM
Currently, certain "detractors" like to hold Fed's "failure" to win RG against him. When all is said and done, I think that the reality of the situation will be very clear: in almost any other era, Fed would probably have won RG.

Is this a joke? In any decent era Federer wouldn't even reach the final.

After Nadal this is a paper-thin era in terms of clay court talent. There isn't a single pure clay courter in the top 10 besides Nadal.

I would have liked to see Federer make the finals of RG with the likes of Kuerten, Corretja, Costa, Norman, JC Ferero, Kafelnikov, Meligeni, Moya and Rios competing. That is what we had 7-8 years ago.

Alex999
02-09-2008, 08:58 PM
Is this a joke? In any decent era Federer wouldn't even reach the final.

After Nadal this is a paper-thin era in terms of clay court talent. There isn't a single pure clay courter in the top 10 besides Nadal.

I would have liked to see Federer make the finals of RG with the likes of Kuerten, Corretja, Costa, Norman, JC Ferero, Kafelnikov, Meligeni, Moya and Rios competing. That is what we had 7-8 years ago.

Agreed, and can somebody remind me how many GS Sampras won? Fed has 12 if I remember correctly. My memory is getting so bad :devil:

CyBorg
02-09-2008, 09:35 PM
Agreed, and can somebody remind me how many GS Sampras won? Fed has 12 if I remember correctly. My memory is getting so bad :devil:

Sampras would get to an RG final today. I don't think was as good on clay as Roger but in the mid-90s (especially 94 and 96) he was quite solid and people forget this. He had to fight through some very tough players.

I'm sure he would have gotten through Davydenko in an RG semi, as Roger did last year.

That said, this doesn't change the fact that Roger is a much more consistent and natural clay court talent than Pete ever was. But it says a lot about today's era and Pete's early efforts to capture the French Open. After a while he just gave up and that's what we remember. He had no chance. There were too many guys who played a pure clay game, unlike today where we see three of the four RG semifinalists basically playing a hardcourt game.